Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47
|
Score -111
12/19/2025, 7:24:34 AM
X
In reply to:
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
@UnderSecPD Now, it's time to build on its successes and go further.

You can read my full letter here:https://www.schmitt.senate.gov/w…
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
Under President Trump's leadership—and thanks to the incredible work of patriots like @UnderSecPD, who I met with to discuss these issues before her confirmation earlier this year—the State Department has staked out a strong pro-sovereignty, pro-free speech posture in the world.
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
Left-wing activist NGOs like CCDH are malignant actors, and play a similar role to the left-wing anti-"hate" groups that have gone after X and @elonmusk here in America. They have played a critical part in this global censorship enterprise, and should face the same consequences.
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
Some of these foreign censors are currently residing in our country. Imran Ahmed—the British Labour Party operative who founded the Soros-funded Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)—is reportedly here on a visa. The State Department should revoke it. He needs to go back.
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
I'm also asking the State Department to consider visa and travel restrictions. As I noted in my letter, a who's-who of this cartel recently attended a pro-censorship conference at Stanford.

There's no reason we should let these people come to our country for strategy meetings.
Senator Eric Schmitt
@SenEricSchmitt
·
3d
In the past, the State Department has used Magnitsky Sanctions against foreigners in far-flung countries who attack the rights of their citizens.

In this case, they're waging a direct assault on not just their citizens, but OUR citizens, right here on our own soil.

The statement and its context involve a discussion on visa restrictions and censorship, touching on public policy and international relations. The tone is critical and confrontational, focusing on perceived threats to free speech and sovereignty.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement's confrontational tone may contribute to divisiveness rather than constructive dialogue, potentially causing harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The call for visa revocation and labeling of individuals as 'malignant actors' could be seen as disrespectful and lacking empathy. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism and instead uses strong language that could be perceived as personal attacks. [-1]